Silencing Christians

Pam's House Blend reported on the launching of the new AFA website called, "Silencing Christians". Apparently it's run by Don Wildmon's son Tim, who's following in his father's footsteps.

From Pam's website:
The premise is that Christians are under assault by homosexualists, enabled by state and local governments and schools, to force them to accept LGBTs as -- gasp -- human beings deserving of civil rights! They are careful to mention "former homosexuals" and those struggling with "unwanted same-sex attraction" in order to soothe and absolve the target audience of "Christians" that their motivations are rooted in compassion, not bigotry.
Don Wildmon got this thing rolling back in February 2008 when he announced a 13 week half-hour television series called "Speechless... Silencing Christians" on the Inspiration cable network INSP. (Not available from any cable provider in my area.) After its run, he made it available as a streaming video online.

When he first announced this project, Wildmon had this to say:
For years, I have had a dream that AFA would find a way to produce and distribute TV programs addressing major moral issues, programs that explain how great the anti-Christian bias is in our society and that give viewers ways to respond.

On the "Silencing Christians" website, there is a survey. The survey asks thirteen questions, and gives "Yes, No, Maybe" multiple choice answers. However it would be better to answer these questions essay style.

For a site that is supposed to expose bias, these questions reveal a surprising amount of bias! I'll answer these questions here:
  1. Do you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin?

    • Yes. Both in the New Testament and Old Testament. Jesus also condemns all women who divorce their husbands (for any offense) as adulterers. And Paul says Christians shouldn't sue each other in front of a secular judge. Perhaps we shouldn't be getting moral advice from a bunch of stories about amateur philosophers who lived a couple of thousand years ago?

  2. Can homosexuals change their sexual orientation?

    • No one really knows for sure, but in many cases the answer seems to be "no".

  3. Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?

    • Yes.

  4. Should homosexuals be given the same special rights extended to African-Americans and other minorities?

    • What "special rights" have been given to blacks? The right to not be treated as chattel? The right to be treated equally? The right to an interracial marriage? The right to the same rights as other American citizens? The language you use here exposes more than a little racism.

  5. Should hate crimes legislation be passed that would call for more severe penalties for crimes against homosexuals?

    • No. Hate crime legislation should be passed that gives equally severe penalties for a hate crime. In some states the penalty for a hate crime against a gay person is less than for a similar crime against an ethnic or religious minority. How is that fair?

  6. Do you believe that churches and religious organizations should be forced to hire homosexuals?

    • No. They are private organizations. Just like the Boy Scouts. They should be allowed to ban anyone they want from their clubs. However, if they do so they should be denied government funding of any sort so that the State may remain neutral toward religion. If the State gives money to a group who bans some of the State's citizens, then endorsement of this practice is implied. How could citizens be equal in these conditions?

  7. Would you support a boycott of a major U.S. corporation that contributes money to support homosexual activist organizations?

    • No. And judging from your results, neither should you. That boycott against Disney really brought them to their knees didn't it?

  8. Should judges be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court who support extending special rights to homosexuals?

    • No. Judges should be appointed who support equal rights to all citizens, and who uphold the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Special rights - such as the special right that some non-profit organizations must pay taxes while others don't, should be closely examined for fairness.

  9. Should employers be forced to extend special consideration in the hiring of homosexuals?

    • No. Employers should be forced to treat employees and potential employees equally in compliance with basic human rights and the rights that any American citizen has. In other words, no glass ceilings, no quid pro quo, no hiring minorities just because you need a "token", no firing employees because they refuse to believe in E-meters and Thetans, and no shuffling resumes to the bottom of the pile just because someone seems effeminate or butch.

  10. Is the secular media demonstrating a bias in favor of the homosexual agenda?

    • I don't know. Which secular media do you mean? Fox News? Is the secular media less biased about the "homosexual agenda" than the religious media? I don't think so.

  11. Do you support amending the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman?

    • No.

  12. Should children in public schools be taught homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman?

    • It depends on the age of the children. Should we teach drivers education to kindergarteners? Or maybe have woodshop for first graders? Sex education is important, and some subjects are important enough to be taught before puberty, while other subjects can wait for later. By the time puberty happens, some kids are going to realize they are not like their friends. They shouldn't have to feel like outcasts because of this - so it would be immoral to allow kids to think that it is right to treat homosexuals differently, unequally.

  13. Do you agree that Christians should be arrested for speaking against homosexuality in public places?

    • No. I will gladly, vehemently defend a Christian's right to say whatever he feels is appropriate in a public place, as long as he or she doesn't break any law in doing so. (No yelling "Fire" in the theater.) However, I've noticed that preaching hate only gets a certain class of people to join your congregation. Is that who you really want as your membership?

11 comments:

Washi said...

I just had to say, in relation to the "Should children in public schools be taught homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman?" question: I was never, in all my years of public schooling, taught a thing about marriage of any sort. I learned things about marriage from my own family and my friend's families and my church. Some of my teachers told us where s/he had been married, or talked about the proposal (the student teacher for one of my choir classes had been proposed to the week before starting work), but we were never formally taught "This is marriage." I'm wondering, how widespread is this "teaching children about marriage in schools" thing that it is an actual concern for anyone?

Other than that I fully agree with you.

Sempaidavid said...

To Washi's point Marriage is not taught in school. The teachers Struggle to teach the basic skills required for exams let alone teach anything regarding marriage. This whole question was a simple and effective ploy to get parents to Vote yes on Prop 8. It worked too. I had several liberal Christians say to me me that they would vote yes because otherwise their children would be taught something that they don't agree with. Even the Prop 8 signs played on the family image.
As for the rest of Mark's answers, I agree!

Calladus said...

Perhaps I'm just old. When I was in High School, marriage was taught.

Us guys got "marriage" in Health class (aka sex ed class). As in, "You would be smart to wait on sex until you're married." and "Here, carry this egg around for a week."

bleh.

Girls (and the guys who were smart enough to choose it for an elective) also heard about marriage in Home Economics class.

And as Washi said, we were always hearing about some teacher or another getting married.

But yea, I don't think it's an issue about marriage so much as an issue of sex education. Young, hormone loaded kids are going to want to know things that they are too uncomfortable to ask, and may be blocked from asking online.

The best question I've heard (second or third hand, admittedly) is, "I know a condom works there, but does it work THERE too?"

You probably want to answer that sort of question - telling the kid to ignore it and wait for marriage is a good way to encourage her or him to experiment on their own.

Tanya said...

I had to do the egg thing too!! It was in junior high. I was responsible for 50% of the grade. My "husband" was responsible for the other 50%..

Ready for it?

My "husband" was my friend, Raymond. He asked me to be his "wife" for the same reason that he took me to the Aerosmith/Skid Row concert...
Because he was gay, and he knew I wouldn't out him.

That was a fun year.

GG said...

I just watched that television special (with much eye-rolling and retching, might I add) a week or two ago. And seeing the questionnaire on your blog inspired me to answer it on my own. Good thoughts!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Calladus said...

Anonymous - I don't advocate violence. I would also suggest that you read my blog's Comment Moderation Policy.

kk0isonlymyname said...

I'm not sure I agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. The Bible condemns male attraction to other men, which is not identical to homosexuality. That is, homosexuality includes lesbianism which the Bible does not condemn or even mention (perhaps it's misogyny that 'homosexuality' and 'male homosexuality' are used interchangeably).

The idea of a distinct homosexual lifestyle and identity (as opposed to, say, spontaneous homosexual behaviour, homosexual desire without the behaviour, or romantic love between members of the same sex that is not overtly sexual) is a recent phenomenon in only some cultures, that we shouldn't project onto the Bible.

But most importantly, male sexuality and homosexual behaviour had a different significance at that time. It was not egalitarian but often involved the assertion of dominance through rape; and pederasty was common.

Calladus said...

Read Romans 1:18-32. Make sure to read the translator's notes too. I use the NET bible and translator's notes.

Here's the link: http://tinyurl.com/b99vnv

kk0isonlymyname said...

The mention of female sexual 'perversion' does not necessarily mean homosexuality, but it might. So I'll leave that for now.

However, like I said, it is a matter of interpretation. Remember that male sexuality has always had a violent character to it, and its history has been filled with the treatment of the objects of sexual desire (usually women) as chattel, and as legitimate receivers of rape and brutality.

When women receive that treatment (which is all the time, and this was even more true in those days than it is now) it doesn't get its own story in the Bible because nobody cared at that time; they barely care now. But when men do, they must be protected from the inhumanity of being 'treated as women'. What appears like a condemnation of homosexuality is in fact a protection of men from the perversions of other, often more powerful men.

Also, non-procreative sex of any sort is hedonistic, and Christianity has generally had an anti-hedonistic tone.

Calladus said...

The entire bible is a "matter of interpretation". That's why there are Christian sects, many of which condemn each other.

Many sects use the bible as proof that homosexuality is wrong, and they are adamant that the sects who do not believe as they do are incorrect.

I think I would not be incorrect in saying that the prevailing Christian interpretation of the bible is that it condemns homosexuality in both men and women.